NY Times:
Climate Politics Are Worse Than You Think
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The despicable Nobel Prize Winning Fake Economist Paul Krugman is one of the most senior propagandists at the “paper of record” and a ubiquitous TV gadfly. The odious little rodent’s subtle condescending scorn and veiled hatred for White people. In this propaganda piece, the sneaky sniveling specimen of Satanic scum attempts to prop up the weakening Climate Con by utilizing every commie cliché and logical fallacy in his arsenal of asininity.
Rather than repeating my usual rebuttals to the usual lies of “climate science,” let’s focus on the deliberately deceptive logical fallacies / rhetorical devices which this master of mendacity — this juvenile joker — this heckling hyena vomits out for his legions of stupid and vapid groupies to gulp down like mother’s milk.
Krugman: Texas is often hot, but not like this.
Analysis: This is Recency Bias. With far less asphalt than there is today — Waco, Texas reached 104 degrees in 1917, 1935 and 1978. During the heat wave of 1980, the Dallas/Fort Worth area recorded 42 consecutive days with temperatures above 100 ° F — with temperatures reaching 117 °F at Wichita Falls, Texas.
Krugman: Current forecasts have the temperature in Dallas hitting 109 degrees Tuesday, with highs in triple digits well into next week.
Analysis: This is the Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence, aka “Cherry-Picking” data. On any given day, one can just as easily pick out places on Earth that are experiencing normal temps, or having an unusual cool spell.
Krugman: You have to be willfully blind — unfortunately, a fairly common ailment among politicians, not to see that —
Analysis: This is the ad Hominem Attack Fallacy. He is essentially calling anyone who disputes the Climate Con stupid, dishonest, or both — without presenting any hard evidence to support his own case.
Krugman: — global warming has stopped being a debatable threat.
Analysis: This is “The Science is Settled Fallacy“ — a variation of what I like to refer to as the “Case Closed Fallacy” — in which a fool or a liar (in this case, a liar) will declare in an authoritative tone that “There is no longer any debate.” — as if such pathetic posturing actually proves anything!
Krugman: Climate scientists — whose warnings ….
Analysis: This is the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. It is intended to intimidate us mere mortals into bowing before the bought & paid for whore “scientists” without so much as even attempting to do our own research and use our own reasoning. This device also ignores the fact that there are many other scientists (all censored) who refute this garbage.
Krugman: …have been overwhelmingly vindicated …
Analysis: They will often say that the evidence for this or that “latest thing” is “overwhelming” — yet they never actually produce any. The powerful-sounding word itself is intended to substitute for the lack of evidence. This is salesmanship, not scholarship. Let’s just call this trick “The Evidence is Overwhelming Trick.” (no link)
Krugman: (West Virginia Senator) Joe Manchin just pulled the plug on what may have been the Biden administration’s last chance to do something — anything — meaningful about climate change. Manchin represents a state that still thinks of itself as coal country. He gets more political contributions from the energy industry than any other member of Congress …. He has a large financial conflict of interest arising from his family’s ownership of a coal business.
Analysis: This is the Appeal to Motive Fallacy. Senator Manchin’s perceived motives for opposing the Climate Con (from a coal state, donations from energy companies) is not at all relevant for establishing the veracity of the fundamental theory that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic “Global Warming.”
Krugman: My guess is that Manchin’s act has as much to do with vanity as with money. His act has, after all, kept him in the political limelight month after month.
Analysis: Let’s call this one the “Little Paulie is a Nasty Slandering Piece of Shit Human Being Fallacy.“(no link)
Krugman: Scientific consensus in favor of such policies doesn’t help.
Analysis: This is the Appeal to the Popular Fallacy — truth is arrived at by research and analysis of facts and patterns — not by the “overwhelming consensus” of whore “scientists.”
Krugman: Emission taxes are the Econ 101 solution to pollution.
Analysis: The unspoken reference to “emissions” (CO2) as “pollution” is an Assumptive Fallacy because the casual mention of it as such leads the reader to accepting something that it actually false as being true. CO2 is no more of a “pollutant” than oxygen or water vapor are!
Krugman: The modern G.O.P. is hostile to science and scientists.
Analysis: Not sure whether to file this doozie under ad Hominem Attack Fallacy or escalate it to “Little Paulie is a Nasty Slandering Piece of Shit Human Being Fallacy.“ Probably the latter.
Krugman: Death rates since vaccines became widely available have been far higher in strongly Republican areas than in Democratic areas.
Analysis: This is False Equivalence Fallacy and also Red Herring (Diversion) Fallacy. Even if we were to accept, purely for argument’s sake, that the Stupid-19 scamdemic was real; that vaccines saved millions of lives; and that anti-science Republicans got it all wrong — that would not prove the ludicrous theory which holds that manmade CO2 “emissions” will melt Antarctica and wash away our heavily populated coastal regions.
Krugman: Overwhelming scientific consensus….
Analysis: Wow! A “three-fer” of high-school-level debate team fallacies back-to-back-back — “overwhelming” (“The Overwhelming Trick,” again) “scientific” (Appeal to Authority, again) and “consensus”(Appeal to the Popular, again)
Krugman: That hostility is the fundamental reason we appear set to do nothing while the planet burns.
Analysis: “While the planet burns, eh?” With that bit of drama, Paulie Propagandists closes with a classic example of the Appeal to Fear Fallacy.
*********
So there it is. As usual, not one iota of hard data to support the Climate Con. Just one classic fallacy (lie) heaped upon another upon another. One could actually teach a college course on logic just by analyzing the seditious scribbling of this demented little “Nobel Prize winning” ™ demon.
Once one learns the tricks of the “intellectual” deceiver, his diversionary tactics become very easy to spot. For that reason, critical thinking skills are NOT something that Krugman’s quackademic comrades want their normie students to develop.
// 3. Paul Krugman is a deceitful, slandering, anti-White / America-hating COMMUNIST in the mold of “Russian” Red Leon Trotsky — a creature so vile that even Joe Stalin hated him (and had him murdered).
The World We Live In 